Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => Topic started by: 2Vermont on November 16, 2014, 05:40:08 PM
-
Matthew,
Could you please explain what the heck is going on .... like I'm 5? I start to read some of these recent threads about a guy named Pablo and Fr Pfieffer and I just can't figure it out. I've got to think there are others out there who are just as confused.
TIA.
-
Matthew,
Could you please explain what the heck is going on .... like I'm 5? I start to read some of these recent threads about a guy named Pablo and Fr Pfieffer and I just can't figure it out. I've got to think there are others out there who are just as confused.
TIA.
I'll do my best, but I'm on the phone right now. I'll try to answer your question though.
-
No rush of course.....
-
I think I'm pretty much up-to-speed on Pablo myself, having experienced him first-hand two years ago, but I can see where a good Pablo 101 summary could be useful for some folks at this point.
-
He claims to be a "lay exorcist", which is beyond diabolical. That's all I really know.
-
Matthew,
Could you please explain what the heck is going on .... like I'm 5? I start to read some of these recent threads about a guy named Pablo and Fr Pfieffer and I just can't figure it out. I've got to think there are others out there who are just as confused.
TIA.
Not Matthew, but.....
Pablo has reportedly:
1 - Attempted solemn exorcisms as both a layman and without delegation from the Church hierarchy. I cannot even begin to describe the risks involved.
2 - Broadcast personal information of lay coordinators of most Resistance chapels in the United States, including personal addresses.
3 - Claims to practice a code of silence usually associated with the Italian mafia.
-
Matthew,
Could you please explain what the heck is going on .... like I'm 5? I start to read some of these recent threads about a guy named Pablo and Fr Pfieffer and I just can't figure it out. I've got to think there are others out there who are just as confused.
TIA.
Pablo the M exican is a man named Paul Hernandez who has worked with Fr. Pfeiffer for years (hereafter referred to as "Pablo").
Pablo made the news many years ago -- he's substantially the same today, just older:
http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/2001-02-08/feature/the-devil-and-mr-hernandez/
Fr. Pfeiffer is quite attached to this particular man and his help. It is quite mysterious, as many laymen and priests have offered Fr. Pfeiffer many solemn warnings about Pablo. Fr. Pfeiffer thinks his organization can't function without Pablo -- despite the fact that people quit, avoid his organization, etc. BECAUSE OF Pablo.
Pablo has a long history and reputation for being unstable, emotional, exaggerating, sowing confusion, verbally assaulting Traditional Catholics (including the parents of Fr. Pfeiffer!), etc. He was banned from CathInfo for some of these reasons, especially once it came to light he was performing exorcisms for third parties. He frequently talked about exorcism, the devil, and how sometimes fighting with the devil "goes to hand-to-hand combat".
As the moderator of a large forum, I banned Pablo in 2012 for the good of the Resistance. I knew he was dangerous, especially for the reputation of the Resistance itself. My fears have been borne out.
Recently, Pablo came out of relative calm/retirement to commit 2 heinous deeds:
* Publicly slandering Fr. Zendejas and Bishop Williamson on the official "Our Lady of Mount Carmel" website, calling them "children of hell", "sheep stealers", and other foul slander.
* Publicly posting the private names/addresses/phone numbers/emails of the 25 coordinators of all the Resistance chapels in the USA. The list clearly says "PRIVATE - Not to be published on the Internet".
Pablo also wrote a rather disedifying (to say the least!) letter to all the chapel coordinators, which displayed a diabolical pride and hatred.
PART II - Fr. Pfeiffer
Fr. Pfeiffer can't exactly wash his hands of much of this -- for one thing, he is very much online. He has an iPad and a laptop, and is frequently online according to those who have worked with him. He does approve of everything posted to OurLadyOfMountCarmelUSA.com and InThisSignYouShallConquer.com. Any statements to the contrary are false. Yes, this is grave, and yes I realize what that means. I'd rather not spell it out, it's so distasteful.
There is plenty of evidence for this. Things get posted there, and even if there's a huge outcry they last several days on the blogs. At that point, everyone has seen them and they would have "scrolled off" the radar anyhow. So Fr. Pfeiffer certainly approves of all the content there.
I suggest you look at the threads about Fr. Pfeiffer and Fr. Zendejas. His sermon on Nov. 1 was quite shameful. He also brought people from other chapels to Danbury, CT so he could "seed the audience" with supporters. He literally stacked the deck with extra supporters from out of town! Why? So when he said during his sermon, "Which of us do you choose?" all his supporters would lead the way with "You, Father." and before you know it, the room is alive with support for Fr. Pfeiffer. How pathetic is that! What kind of game is he playing?
Fr. Pfeiffer and Pablo are "good cop, bad cop" at best. But a better analogy would be the United States and ISIS. The United States pretends to be law-abiding, but they have their proxy army (which they funded and trained) ISIS do all their dirty work (destabilizing Iraq, Syria, moving into countries the US wants to get into, etc.)
By using a proxy army, you can avoid much of the criticism. People say "How awful that ISIS did this or that" and it's true -- ISIS was to blame. But few people know that ISIS was created and funded by the United States. So the REAL blame lies at the feet of the United States.
If a man is killed by a hitman, who is guilty of murder? The hitman, the man who hired the hitman, or both?
Fr. Pfeiffer's recent sermons substantially backed up Pablo in his attack on Fr. Zendejas.
And to the best of my knowledge, Fr. Pfeiffer is completely standing behind Pablo during all of this, even with his recent crimes!
On Saturday, Nov 15 Fr. Pfeiffer responded (via one of the Coordinators) and basically offered no chastisement of Pablo or any apology for what happened. In fact, everything he did (publishing the info) would go forward.
The man who created the Coordinators List basically "fell on his sword for Fr. Pfeiffer" and claimed to be at fault for misunderstanding him. Which is completely bogus.
Father is trying to sweep this under the rug.
But again, we have to remember that although Pablo is indeed rough around the edges, he is substantially working for Fr. Pfeiffer and Fr. Pfeiffer largely approves of what he's doing!
Fr. Pfeiffer is the White Elephant in the room that no one wants to talk about.
For that matter, I myself don't want to talk about this. Do you think I like saying unpleasant things about a priest? Don't kid yourself. I'm a good pious Catholic and I get no "nice internal feelings" from attacking this problem. On the contrary, it is extremely disturbing and brings me only sadness.
-
One more question?
Why is he "Pablo the M exican" instead of "pablo the Amateur Exorcist"?
What's up with the spacing?
-
One more question?
Why is he "Pablo the M exican" instead of "pablo the Amateur Exorcist"?
What's up with the spacing?
Because, as a sort of "never forget", I programmed CathInfo to change his usual trademarked name into something more accurate.
He literally performed exorcisms on a hobby or amateur basis, so it's not just name calling to call him an "amateur exorcist".
-
One more question?
Why is he "Pablo the M exican" instead of "pablo the Amateur Exorcist"?
What's up with the spacing?
I suspect it was just a fat finger space (aka typo). I have been here since before pablo was banned and well remember his "erratic" behavior. He refers to himself as "pablo the M exican", so everyone else does also.
Marsha
-
I gave more of a summary than a 5 year old's explanation.
Here's a better summary:
All the evidence/facts point to the fact that Fr. Pfeiffer backs up Pablo, even when Pablo commits objectively heinous deeds.
A) Father's Nov. 1 sermon backs up Pablo's "children of hell" post about Fr. Zendejas and +Williamson
B) Father's "resolution" to the Coordinator List issue? Basically nothing changes. No rebuke of Pablo whatsoever. He stands completely behind Pablo. The Coordinator List to remain public. Anyone wanting their private address OFF the Internet needs to resign and find another person to be Coordinator for his area.
So much for "bad guy Pablo"! It's Fr. Pfeiffer that's pulling the strings!
Last but not least, Fr. Pfeiffer has never received sufficient criticism for his Red Light position on the SSPX. He actually teaches as his doctrine that attending ANY Mass of the SSPX today is committing "Communicatio in Sacris" or communion with heretics. You know, just like going to a Methodist church service.
Ridiculous!
Now we're supposed to leave the SSPX because of their bad doctrine, but we should swallow bad doctrine from Fr. Pfeiffer just because he's Fr. Pfeiffer?
Sorry, no one gets a free pass.
And I'm not opposing the neo-SSPX because I personally dislike Fr. Rostand, Fr. Pfluger, +Fellay, etc. No, I oppose them because of their bad doctrine and their compromises on the Faith.
Why should I overlook Fr. Pfeiffer when he compromises for his own benefit (e.g., the red-light diktat which is calculated to make people dependent on him) -- isn't that exactly what we accuse +Fellay of? Compromising with Rome so he can have a cushier existence, more notoriety, etc.?
Sauce for the goose is good for the gander.
I had nothing against any SSPX priest 10 years ago. My only "opposition" today is for the sake of the Faith and the truth. Even so, I pray for the men involved. I don't "hate" any of them.
God is not a respecter of persons. And neither should we be. If we are silent in the face of evil, He will hold us accountable for the good we COULD HAVE DONE if we had spoken up. We must be strong and trust in God.
Trust me -- God doesn't let those down who work for Him first! And Our Lady certainly takes care of those who rely on her maternal help and protection. But we must love the Truth as much as she did.
It's time to air this out in the open.
Take courage, though, Fr. Pfeiffer is NOT the Resistance. We have an increasing number of priests doing just as much good for the Church and not working with Boston, KY at all. The Resistance will continue, whatever happens to Fr. Pfeiffer's group and seminary.
-
One more question?
Why is he "Pablo the M exican" instead of "pablo the Amateur Exorcist"?
What's up with the spacing?
Because, as a sort of "never forget", I programmed CathInfo to change his usual trademarked name into something more accurate.
He literally performed exorcisms on a hobby or amateur basis, so it's not just name calling to call him an "amateur exorcist".
:roll-laugh1:
I've never used the above smiley before, but this merits it.
-
. . .
As for Pablo, that situation will be handled by Fr. Pfeiffer.
That's what I thought some 20 months ago...
. . . [Fr. Pfeiffer] did not take the warning signs or the personal warnings seriously, and so, in the end, the problem had to be taken care of by other men.
So that's it? The problem has been taken care of by Matthew's banishing him? Problem solved? Little more has been taken care of than the aesthetics of this forum. Meanwhile this nut-job Pablo is still on the loose doing a bang-up PR job IRL for the Resistance.
I personally do not attribute so high a level of connection between him and Fr. Pfeiffer as he has convinced most of you exists. His postings and his interview scream that he is a narcissistic dramatizer to the Nth degree. Maybe he occasionally drives for the good Father. But I suppose any business conducted in his presence was only because nobody thought he'd be able to remember two syllables afterwards.
But that's beside the point. People gobble up what an animated bull#####er like Pablo is spreading, going around grandiosing his "connection" with the good Father. So as long as this is going in IRL, the problem has not been taken care of and it is not the end of the problem.
I am grateful that Matthew banned him. That absolutely needed done. But I applaud the additional efforts, too, to make certain Father Pfeiffer is made aware of all of this, as the IRL problem is hardly solved by his forum banishment.
Since then--
It's quite clear that there is a strong connection between Pablo and Father; and
Father has failed to properly control him, or has acquiesced in his antics, or appreciates his antics.
-
Btw--I by no means intend to slight Matthews efforts in banishing Pablo. That was the most he could do and very appropriate. I was simply stating that the problem that is "Pablo" was not thereby solved.
-
So much for "bad guy Pablo"! It's Fr. Pfeiffer that's pulling the strings!
Thank you, Matthew, for your courage in facing this truth even though it is so wrought with unthinkable conclusions about a priest. This is going to be very difficult for a lot of people to swallow and some will just give up.
When we first began to question this relationship between Pablo and Fr. Pfeiffer none of us were sure who controlled who or if they were in this together. I believe now the truth has surfaced. Cathinfo members have done a masterful job of stripping away the layers of lies to get to the truth. God's graces must be credited to those who when they see evil do not shrink from it but stand up and fight it.
Much prayer is needed to know how to proceed from here.
-
holysoulsacademy,
Have you spoken with Fr. Zendejas?
At this point, anyone insisting that he's anything other than a good priest who's left the SSPX to assist the Resistance should at least give him the chance to speak for himself.
If you don't know how to contact him, PM me with your contact info and I'll pass it on to him.
Either way, such criticisms of Fr. Zendejas without any proof of wrongdoing are no longer welcome on this forum.
-
holysoulsacademy,
Have you spoken with Fr. Zendejas?
At this point, anyone insisting that he's anything other than a good priest who's left the SSPX to assist the Resistance should at least give him the chance to speak for himself.
If you don't know how to contact him, PM me with your contact info and I'll pass it on to him.
Either way, such criticisms of Fr. Zendejas without any proof of wrongdoing are no longer welcome on this forum.
God Bless you, MaterDominici, for this post!
-
If one of the most notorious "pro-Rome" neo-SSPX priests repented tomorrow and started fervently fighting for Tradition again, I would instantly treat him like a best friend.
This is not about personalities. It's about following and being loyal to the Faith and the Truth -- and whoever preaches/defends it.
-
I just listened to Fr. P's sermon for yesterday Nov 15 from Toronto Canada .
Granted I only listened to it once but I got the impression that the unsettling news of the personal info that was leaked has caused such an upset that is our fault. To sum it up I feel we were told to "suck it up" and that we are not handling it right.
Also he "does not own a website" yet he states that 2 years ago he intended to publish the contact names etc on a calendar (like the SSPX chapels).
He then gave several examples of saints that were treated unjustly and they just ignored it.
Here is the sermon. Did I miss something???
http://www.ecclesiamilitans.com/2014/11/16/fr-joseph-pfeiffer-sermon-sunday-november-16-2014-milton-ontario/
-
A) Father's Nov. 1 sermon backs up Pablo's "children of hell" post about Fr. Zendejas and +Williamson
Can you tell me which sermon this is or where I can find a link to this so I can hear it for myself. I don't doubt what you say but I want to listen to this. Is it the All Saints Day Sparta, NJ sermon? I am listening to that one now...
-
A) Father's Nov. 1 sermon backs up Pablo's "children of hell" post about Fr. Zendejas and +Williamson
Can you tell me which sermon this is or where I can find a link to this so I can hear it for myself. I don't doubt what you say but I want to listen to this. Is it the All Saints Day Sparta, NJ sermon? I am listening to that one now...
Yes. That's the one. He refers to "a war between heaven and hell" as he addresses his conflict with Fr. Z.
-
2 years ago he intended to publish the contact names etc on a calendar
He intended to put people's home addresses on a calendar? What purpose does that serve?
-
He then gave several examples of saints that were treated unjustly and they just ignored it.
That's an admirable way to handle injustices done against yourself, but not injustices against other people.
There were 25 families on that list. Not caring about your own information doesn't mean you should be silent about this attack -- and that's exactly what it was -- on the group as a whole.
I'm only 1/2 hour into the sermon, but he hasn't mentioned the unjust posts directed at Bp Williamson and Fr Zendejas.
-
Regarding the "I don't have a website" comment...
The Resistance priests provide nearly all of the content for one site and most of it for the other. If they don't approve of how those sites are being managed and the webmaster refuses to pass the job on to someone else, the obvious solution is to simply stop providing them content.
Father Pfeiffer commented a long time ago that he had no shortage of people offering to provide help with Internet operations.
-
Thanks Matthew (and others). This helps me. It seems like a lot of drama for the Resistance and I would like to form an educated, informed opinion.
This comment struck me as it reminds me of something in my life:
Fr. Pfeiffer thinks his organization can't function without Pablo -- despite the fact that people quit, avoid his organization, etc. BECAUSE OF Pablo.
I wonder whether it is human nature for leaders to get caught up with a person that is not good for their organization. Despite others pointing out the problems with that person, they continue to stay close and depend on that person. I wonder if that comes from insecurities, fear, immaturity, or pride....maybe a bit of all of those things.
I respect your desire to follow the truth. I can certainly relate to your comments that this is not about personalities, but truth.
-
Take courage, though, Fr. Pfeiffer is NOT the Resistance. We have an increasing number of priests doing just as much good for the Church and not working with Boston, KY at all. The Resistance will continue, whatever happens to Fr. Pfeiffer's group and seminary.
This is actually good to know. I don't really follow the Resistance topics much, but when all this first started, I had the impression that Fr. Pfeiffer was the center of the Resistance and after reading and/or listening to a few of those early sermons I was rather dumbfounded and pretty much decided to stay out of the SSPX/Resistance controversy.
-
Regarding the "I don't have a website" comment...
The Resistance priests provide nearly all of the content for one site and most of it for the other. If they don't approve of how those sites are being managed and the webmaster refuses to pass the job on to someone else, the obvious solution is to simply stop providing them content.
Father Pfeiffer commented a long time ago that he had no shortage of people offering to provide help with Internet operations.
Not only does he claim that he does not have a website, he states at 23:49 that "we do not have means of communication".....means of communication are NOT websites. Means of communication are telephones, e-mail (computers), walkie talkies, etc. I do not believe that he does not have a single means of communication. It is difficult to believe that this is an intelligent statement.
-
… What a joke this site is. …
Please recall that this remark comes from a woman who started a thread claiming that a video advertisement for some Chinese game actually showed an angel—an angel!—rescuing a man from certain death.
Everyone who has been holding his breath waiting for her mea culpa—even a simple "wow, did I goof!" would have been appreciated—is now on artificial life support.
Put otherwise, if this site is or has become a joke, how can a measure of responsibility for that state of affairs be lifted from the shoulders of holysoulsacademy herself?
I wish her well in her new career as CAVM (chief angelic visitation monitor) and part-time exorcism thurifer for Pablo Enterprises, Inc.
-
Regarding the "I don't have a website" comment...
Not only does he claim that he does not have a website, he states at 23:49 that "we do not have means of communication".....
Just curious, where is the sermon both of you are referring to?
-
No, there needs to be root and branch survey of this, for the sake of the resistance this was an accident waiting to happen, anything that brings the resistance negativity has to be addressed...
-
1. Personally, from all I have read (but surely not reading all) I think the opposition to Pablo and Fr. Pfieffer is overboard, hasty and emotional, with a lack of toleration and mercy.
2. There were 25 people with their information made public on a web site. It seems that ill-intention was presumed, but we should not presume that.
3. I can see if the information was actually secret, confidential or explicitly promised to not be made widely known, then it could be more serious. In moral theology, if there was no promise, but an understanding, it could be called a "natural secret", but this still doesn't fit, because the information was already semi-public to lots of people. As well, anyone desiring that information could, with a little focus, learn it through multiple channels. It may have been unexpected, surprising and/or embarrassing, but when someone does something we consider imprudent, we shouldn't be making enemies out of them. In Scripture, St. Paul broke off working with Barnabas without becoming an enemy.
4. As well, in Scripture the Apostles complained to Our Lord that there were some other people not accompanying them that were casting out devils in Christ's name. Our Lord corrected them about that. Yes, today Pablo is doing something uncanonical, but all traditionalists are doing uncanonical things in the extrordinary circuмstances.
5. Can't we disagree with out becoming so intolerant that we create an enemy?
1. No, it is not. It is factual, calm, and rational. How can you say it's emotional when it's clearly not? You can't just say something and have it be so.
2. Yes, ill intention can be presumed when the person's words surrounding the action SCREAM malice and ill-intent. When a person says, "This will show you all!" or something equivalent -- yes, he did that out of spite. We don't have to be foolish or naive to be Catholics. And Pablo very much did this. He said words evincing an INTENSE hatred.
3. The list was clearly marked "all information private -
please do not pass this information on or put it on the internet"
Don't try to claim it wasn't private when it was clearly marked private! Moving on...
4. This has nothing to do with supplied jurisdiction, the Crisis in the Church, or the salvation of souls. It has more to do with Mexican superstition and an unholy fixation on the devil. And Pablo's hobby exorcism business is NOT his only major, public fault. Anyone who writes public letters like he has (See "Pablo explodes - Matthew publicly admonishes him" thread) does not belong in the position of "Chief of the Resistance".
So you're giving Pablo the benefit of the doubt. How about his verbal abuse of Mr. and Mrs. Pfeiffer? I'm sure he was justified for that as well?
5. Even St. Paul said, "Insofar as it lies within you, be at peace with all men." For St. Paul knew that even Our Lord had enemies, and that having enemies was not always one's own fault.
-
Not only does he claim that he does not have a website, he states at 23:49 that "we do not have means of communication".....means of communication are NOT websites. Means of communication are telephones, e-mail (computers), walkie talkies, etc. I do not believe that he does not have a single means of communication. It is difficult to believe that this is an intelligent statement.
Maybe intelligent?
Maybe deceitful?
-
Not only does he claim that he does not have a website, he states at 23:49 that "we do not have means of communication".....means of communication are NOT websites. Means of communication are telephones, e-mail (computers), walkie talkies, etc. I do not believe that he does not have a single means of communication. It is difficult to believe that this is an intelligent statement.
Maybe intelligent?
Maybe deceitful?
Maybe he was referring to newspapers, magazines, official publications, that would be media also means of communication, but it sounds tricky. I'll give him the benefit of a doubt I suppose.
-
this is probably not the time to weigh in for the first time on a hot topic, but i have been around the SSPX @ 20+ years and knew that many priests were not going to leave and join Kentucky, and if Matthew was a seminarian he probably can guess why and the reason is starting to blow up now. I know and love all the priests involved and many Traditional Priests have strong personalities (i mean they had to grow up amidst the destruction and keep their vocation). strong personalities clash and they need to be lead by someone dispassionate. (hopefully the problem will be addressed before larger damage is done)
-
1. Personally, from all I have read (but surely not reading all) I think the opposition to Pablo and Fr. Pfieffer is overboard, hasty and emotional, with a lack of toleration and mercy.
2. There were 25 people with their information made public on a web site. It seems that ill-intention was presumed, but we should not presume that.
3. I can see if the information was actually secret, confidential or explicitly promised to not be made widely known, then it could be more serious. In moral theology, if there was no promise, but an understanding, it could be called a "natural secret", but this still doesn't fit, because the information was already semi-public to lots of people. As well, anyone desiring that information could, with a little focus, learn it through multiple channels. It may have been unexpected, surprising and/or embarrassing, but when someone does something we consider imprudent, we shouldn't be making enemies out of them. In Scripture, St. Paul broke off working with Barnabas without becoming an enemy.
4. As well, in Scripture the Apostles complained to Our Lord that there were some other people not accompanying them that were casting out devils in Christ's name. Our Lord corrected them about that. Yes, today Pablo is doing something uncanonical, but all traditionalists are doing uncanonical things in the extrordinary circuмstances.
5. Can't we disagree with out becoming so intolerant that we create an enemy?
1. No, it is not. It is factual, calm, and rational. How can you say it's emotional when it's clearly not? You can't just say something and have it be so.
2. Yes, ill intention can be presumed when the person's words surrounding the action SCREAM malice and ill-intent. When a person says, "This will show you all!" or something equivalent -- yes, he did that out of spite. We don't have to be foolish or naive to be Catholics. And Pablo very much did this. He said words evincing an INTENSE hatred.
3. The list was clearly marked "all information private -
please do not pass this information on or put it on the internet"
Don't try to claim it wasn't private when it was clearly marked private! Moving on...
4. This has nothing to do with supplied jurisdiction, the Crisis in the Church, or the salvation of souls. It has more to do with Mexican superstition and an unholy fixation on the devil. And Pablo's hobby exorcism business is NOT his only major, public fault. Anyone who writes public letters like he has (See "Pablo explodes - Matthew publicly admonishes him" thread) does not belong in the position of "Chief of the Resistance".
So you're giving Pablo the benefit of the doubt. How about his verbal abuse of Mr. and Mrs. Pfeiffer? I'm sure he was justified for that as well?
5. Even St. Paul said, "Insofar as it lies within you, be at peace with all men." For St. Paul knew that even Our Lord had enemies, and that having enemies was not always one's own fault.
Wow! This got down-thumbed huh...
Pablo is either crazier than hell and possibly dangerous OR he gets a very abnormal kick out of going out of his way to make people think that he is. I believe that it's the former as he seems to have virtually no self-control and is always grandiosing and dramatizing things.
If he is one-fourth as obnoxious in person as he is online, then I would hardly be able to tolerate him beyond 5 minutes. Based on several personal accounts, I gather that he's at least as obnoxious, if not worse, in person.
Matthew, I'm sorry that I even had momentary pause at your decision how to handle this nonsense. Any post that starts out "I think the opposition to Pablo . . . is overboard, hasty and emotional, with a lack of toleration and mercy," reflects poor judgment and the shallowest of insight.
-
In my experiences with various Traditional Catholics of all flavors, it's ALWAYS after someone has started to decide who is and who is not Catholic based on various narrow criteria that THEY START TO SHOW BITTER ZEAL AND GO UNSTABLE IN MANY WAYS. Fraternal charity seems to leave them. And that only seems natural, for when people begin, based on their own private judgment, to determine who's Catholic and who isn't, that's the beginning of schism, which is at its core a sin against charity. It's obvious that Lutherans, for instance, are not Catholics. But when SVs call SSPX non-Catholic or vice versa, or people call Feeneyites non-Catholic, or certain Feeneyites call those who accept BoD non-Catholic, it rots away the core fraternal charity and also demonstrate the hubris of exalting our own judgments about various THEOLOGICAL POSITIONS that aren't at the core of Catholic dogma.
Here's my rule of thumb. If you SAY THAT YOU ARE A CATHOLIC, i.e. profess Catholicism, and profess that you believe everything that the Catholic Church teaches with its supreme authority, and ... here's the key point ... if the CHURCH DOES NOT TELL ME OTHERWISE, i.e., THAT YOU ARE NOT A CATHOLIC DESPITE YOUR PROFESSION, then as far as I am concerned you ARE A CATHOLIC and I have absolutely ZERO business stating otherwise. I am not your keeper, and God is going to judge me based on whether I remained a Catholic (and other criteria) and not whether I made the correct judgment about which other people who consider themselves Catholic really aren't.
So I feel that the close and closer Father Pfeiffer gets to a schismatic home-alone red-lightism, the more he'll start to crack.
-
... i have been around the SSPX @ 20+ years and knew that many priests were not going to leave and join Kentucky, and if Matthew was a seminarian he probably can guess why and the reason is starting to blow up now.
More riddles and inside talk...
As secretive as a freemason lodge...
-
Are there any actual first-hand accounts of Pablo screaming at Fr Pfieffer's mom (or parents) and him being asked to leave the property? After meeting Fr P in person, I find it hard to believe he didn't knock Pablo down at that moment. ( A loving and holy correction of error, ala P.Pio)
-
More riddles and inside talk...
As secretive as a freemason lodge...
:smoke-pot:
no nothing like that it is just that when you live with priests, seminarians, monks etc. you know sometimes all too well the human side of people.
-
this is probably not the time to weigh in for the first time on a hot topic, but i have been around the SSPX @ 20+ years and knew that many priests were not going to leave and join Kentucky, and if Matthew was a seminarian he probably can guess why and the reason is starting to blow up now. I know and love all the priests involved and many Traditional Priests have strong personalities (i mean they had to grow up amidst the destruction and keep their vocation). strong personalities clash and they need to be lead by someone dispassionate. (hopefully the problem will be addressed before larger damage is done)
Is this your polite way of saying that the SSPX attracts "eccentrics", (wild-eyed and otherwise) and the SSPXMC needs to put somebody less so in charge?
-
no i was guessing that had that been the case from the beginning, more priests would have joined the resistance
-
Personally, from all I have read (but surely not reading all) I think the opposition to Pablo and Fr. Pfieffer is overboard, hasty and emotional, with a lack of toleration and mercy.
There were 25 people with their information made public on a web site. It seems that ill-intention was presumed, but we should not presume that.
I can see if the information was actually secret, confidential or explicitly promised to not be made widely known, then it could be more serious. In moral theology, if there was no promise, but an understanding, it could be called a "natural secret", but this still doesn't fit, because the information was already semi-public to lots of people. As well, anyone desiring that information could, with a little focus, learn it through multiple channels. It may have been unexpected, surprising and/or embarrassing, but when someone does something we consider imprudent, we shouldn't be making enemies out of them. In Scripture, St. Paul broke off working with Barnabas without becoming an enemy.
As well, in Scripture the Apostles complained to Our Lord that there were some other people not accompanying them that were casting out devils in Christ's name. Our Lord corrected them about that. Yes, today Pablo is doing something uncanonical, but all traditionalists are doing uncanonical things in the extrordinary circuмstances.
Can't we disagree with out becoming so intolerant that we create an enemy?
I can't imagine how you could have read all the available information on this subject and come to this conclusion. :scratchchin:
There is a good reason that Saints Paul and Barnabas were not enemies. They were both Catholic saints working for the good of souls and the Church. No one that I know of has made that claim for anyone involved in this mess. And there are no extraordinary circuмstances that would allow a layman to attempt to perform exorcism.
-
Are there any actual first-hand accounts of Pablo screaming at Fr Pfieffer's mom (or parents) and him being asked to leave the property? After meeting Fr P in person, I find it hard to believe he didn't knock Pablo down at that moment. ( A loving and holy correction of error, ala P.Pio)
I was present for that. It did happen. I don't believe he was asked to leave at that moment; it came later on, like six weeks later when Pablo directly disobeyed Fr.
-
Are there any actual first-hand accounts of Pablo screaming at Fr Pfieffer's mom (or parents) and him being asked to leave the property? After meeting Fr P in person, I find it hard to believe he didn't knock Pablo down at that moment. ( A loving and holy correction of error, ala P.Pio)
I was present for that. It did happen. I don't believe he was asked to leave at that moment; it came later on, like six weeks later when Pablo directly disobeyed Fr.
If Father asked Pablo to leave why all the ruckus? Is Pablo still there sowing his weeds?
Marsha
-
I can agree that he should lose his position, but this still doesn't make him a traitor.
???
-
PART II - Fr. Pfeiffer
Fr. Pfeiffer can't exactly wash his hands of much of this -- for one thing, he is very much online. He has an iPad and a laptop, and is frequently online according to those who have worked with him. He does approve of everything posted to OurLadyOfMountCarmelUSA.com and InThisSignYouShallConquer.com. Any statements to the contrary are false. Yes, this is grave, and yes I realize what that means. I'd rather not spell it out, it's so distasteful.
Not true. To say he approves of what's on those sites is incorrect, he's usually not in the loop until others bring him in. My personal case in the presence of Him and Pablo; he directed Pablo to remove a listing for Masses his confrere was saying for some weeks in a certain location. Pablo grunted some sort of acknowledgement, but never removed the listing. (it still remains, October into November) You can figure out why he wanted it deleted.
I have seen how Fr. Pfeiffer uses his notebook and pad, mostly for maps and he gets a bit frustrated even for that purpose. He's no seasoned net junkie by any measure.